I'm sorry. Have I just missed something or haven't the Lib Dems just lost? After all the hype and pomp and frantic hysteria, have the Lib Dems not achieved a worse result than they managed in 2005? As far as I am aware this is what the results show us. How come, therefore, do they still have the right to become 'king-maker', to coin a phrase being thrown around. Whilst I understand that the intricacies of a hung parliament mean everything is in limbo and that these niceties and closed-door dealing are necessary, it seems somewhat preposterous that the party that effectively came last should decide the outcome of the most important election in decades.
Nick Clegg banged on about 'fairness' before the election (a particular pet hate of mine). Yet how is it 'fair' that a party that achieves the lowest number of seats and lowest percentage of the vote of the three main parties, all of a sudden gets to implement policy in the new administration. I did not vote for the Lib Dems on my ballot paper because I do not want them in government, in the same way that labour supporters did not vote for the Lib Dems because they do not want them in government. This is hardly the mark of a 'fair' system. Maybe someone could let Mr Clegg no and quietly suggest that he back the Tories on votes to maintain power and yet not try and impose his own policies... Because of course that would be a 'fair' system wouldn't it? That is, one where the party that gets the most votes and seats gets the chance to govern and implement policy. Or does 'fairness' only apply when it benefits the Lib Dems? Not that I would ever suggest they may have double standards...
Labour also seem to have not got the point. One of the Millibands (dopey or snoozy I can't remember which) was on TV saying "well clearly the country have chosen that the parties should get along. The country has decided that they want a hung parliament" Really?! I'm not sure about you but certainly on my ballot paper there was not a box that said "Tick here if you want economic chaos, political unrest and a system where no-one is happy because no party can implement any policies". People do not choose to have a hung parliament; it is one of the problems with a three party system. This is in a large part why the Americans are mostly bemused at this odd English merry-go-round that doesn't have a winner or loser, because it is a frankly ludicrous position to be in.
Nick Clegg then bangs on about 'electoral reform' but this right now is why proportional representation is a very very bad idea through and through. No-one will ever get a majority again. This does not mean that everyone is happy because all parties have to compromise; it means that everyone is pissed off because no party can follow through on their election promises; it means all parties will always be able to fall back on "well we couldn't implement everything we wanted because we're in a coalition" With continual coalitions nothing will effectively get decided and the political boundaries that have shaped this country for centuries will become further muddled than they already are. It will become a five yearly cycle where the guy at the top changes, but he can only represent a political view in name and not in deed because he has to pacify people who he has no connection or desire to be connected with but are still part of the government. This is just another case where Mr Clegg's 'fairness' is only 'fair' because it will benefit his party more than anyone else and will be to the detriment of every single person in the country... except Mr Clegg himself of course. But then that couldn't possibly be his motivation could it ?!?
In short PR would be a disaster for this country and would wipe out centuries of party politics, which very effectively represented the people of Britain and their views.
Maybe though there may be a different problem here. One could argue that maybe this is the legacy that 13 years of labour has left us: Complete ambivalence and apathy to politics and complete naivety into what it means and actually what the parties stand for. Tony Blair and his centrist labour party have changed forever how people view themselves. No longer are people so ingrained with a do or die, left or right swing because the parties now can no longer swing left or right without being called extremist. Michael Foot's 'longest suicide note in history' in 1983 still achieved a better general election result for labour than they have just suffered. Yet had Foot been alive and done that today he would have been sidelined with the likes of the BNP as extremist and un-British. Politics has become a centrist mar where people become a blur and policy becomes inseparable. This mirrors the rest of society where in the same way that moral values have coagulated, congealed and merged into a centrist mess were everything is permissible and no-one can stand up for a particular value or ideal in case they offend anyone else. Politics, people, opinion and action has all become indistinguishable, but this is a rant for another day... If this is a 'progressive society I might jump in my time machine and go back to 1979. Vive La Dame en Fer!
